Use the search button and then the tags as criteria

For instance, these are only Hard 3 blanks we do have on the board. Pretty easy to perform the search

https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/search.ph ... mit=Search

Please check the OA, the 3rd black H or G?

They are correct

Caution: if the OA is correct then you are wrong on the 3rd blank.

You are right huda, I actually meant to say similar and not opposite. man-made is the right choice, but I don't have the correct explanation for that.

Curiously, today we believe these cases to be (ii)____ even though there is no way to detect them against the normal background of disease: even without (iii)____ radiation exposure, about one in three people develop cancer.


Now we have NO doubts that even at tiny doses of radiation some form of cancer will be developed by someone before or after. The answer that shows NO doubt is E

even we DO NOT have a man-made (the other options for the third blank simply have no sense in the context) trace we will have the onset of a form of cancer.

Notice how man-made means provoked by humans, artificial.

Regards

Always break down the stimulus in chunks and sentences. this approach will permit you two things

1) along the way you, ideally, should come up with the right answer choices without seeing the option
2) a few mistakes
3) It will be more manageable


The linear no-threshold theory of cancer that no radiation dose is so small that it cannot produce a probability of cancer was proposed when researchers found that survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had (i)____ high rates of cancer later in life.

Basically, the first sentence tells us that even no radiations or an iota of them could lead to cancer late in life. And this scenario certainly will bring a huge rate of cases

Scientists used those data at high does to extrapolate how many excess cancer cases would develop at lower doses.


The scientist used those data to gain insights home many cases of cancer we do have mORe than the average due to the lower dosage of radiations

Curiously, today we believe these cases to be (ii)____ even though there is no way to detect them against the normal background of disease: even without (iii)____ radiation exposure, about one in three people develop cancer.

We do believe, contrary to what indeed the data show us, that these cases over the average are the exception but eventually it is not this case. They are not spurious.

This also is confirmed by the fact that the radiation cause cancer and the radiation are man-made. Which means that they are provoked by the human action NOT by nature. In fact, we do have radiation that is normal in our environment. However, they are harmful.

Ubiquitous means everywhere and mandatory means obblòigation. Both are out of scope. Remember, we are talking about follow-up radiation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two disasters made by the men's stupidity dropping the two first nuclear bombs.


Hope this helsp

I have a question about blank (i);
My reasoning: Since - "No radiation dose is so small that it cannot produce a probability of cancer" - implies that as the Hiroshima & Nagasaki received Nuclear bombs - so even after a long time because of radiation the cancer cases are high - hence i am convinced that 'A' shall be the answer.

Any counterargument, please.

Frankly I did not get your point.

Do you need an explanation for the first blank ??

Yes, I want an explanation for the first Blank!

The linear no-threshold theory of cancer that no radiation dose is so small that it cannot produce a probability of cancer was proposed when researchers found that survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had (i)____ high rates of cancer later in life

This sentence means basically, that even the tiniest dose of radiation in the order of micron can cause long-distance cancer.

This is what asserts a new theory

This was based on the observation of the cases in N-H where people had a low dose of radiations, even insignificance. However, we do have a high rate of cases more than the average

That means we do have a disproportion between the doses and the results AKA the cancer cases

So B is out of scope, and C is irrelevant

we need a confrontation between two scales: the low doses and the high cancer cases